Media Matters calls out Novak for his B.S. on Judge Taylor's NSA ruling.

[marmar]

In column, Novak pushed falsehoods about federal judge's decision striking down NSA's warrantless eavesdropping
Summary: In his column, Robert Novak falsely suggested that U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's decision striking down the administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program was so off-the-wall that it "has been stayed and probably will be reversed," that "Taylor ended up with the case because of forum-shopping," and that professor Jack Balkin had criticized the decision's legal reasoning but nevertheless "rejoiced" over it for "political" reasons.

In his August 28 nationally syndicated column, Robert D. Novak falsely suggested that U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's decision striking down the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program was so off-the-wall that it "has been stayed and probably will be reversed" by a federal appellate court. In fact, Taylor stayed her own order when the parties to the lawsuit -- the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the federal government -- agreed to ask her to do so. Also, Novak baselessly claimed that "Taylor ended up with the case because of forum-shopping," a practice that Novak defined as "filing multiple law suits in quest of a favorable venue." However, the ACLU has filed only one lawsuit challenging the administration's warrantless wiretapping. Additionally, Novak falsely suggested that Yale Law School professor Jack Balkin had criticized the decision's legal reasoning but nevertheless "rejoiced" over it for "political" reasons. In fact, while Balkin did criticize the decision's legal rigor, he did not argue that the program should be halted for "political" reasons, as Novak claimed; rather, Balkin argued that Taylor reached the correct result because "the program is illegal."

Novak stated that the ruling by Taylor (misidentified as the chief judge of her district by Novak although she stepped down from that position in 1998 and is now a senior judge) "read more like a political manifesto than a judicial opinion" and suggested that, due to its obvious inadequacy, the decision "has been stayed and probably will be reversed" by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. In fact, Taylor herself temporarily stayed her decision at the request of both parties to the lawsuit until Taylor rules on the defendant's motion for a longer stay while the Justice Department appeals her ruling.

Novak also wrote that "Taylor ended up with the case because" the ACLU had been "forum-shopping," or "filing multiple law suits in quest of a favorable venue," with the supposed aim of being assigned a favorable judge. The ACLU does not appear to have filed any other cases challenging the warrantless eavesdropping program.

The entire piece is at: http://mediamatters.org/items/200608290006